User Tag List

First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 125

  1. #81
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    Once you realize religious people aren't the only ones who do that, I think you'll have a much more balanced perspective. It has more to do with the fact that there are a vast portion of people in society who vehemently cling to their own beliefs, be it in God or something else (like the environment), and both try to impress their views upon others in various ways. Not all religious people are like that. I wouldn't even say that a majority are like that. I would say that, religious or not, it is likely in the collective character of a certain generation, the boomers, that makes them take a position of values and defend it tooth and nail. Religious boomers, atheist boomers, intellectual boomers, environmentalist boomers, same thing. Our parents are the ones who yell and grip their world views with ever fiber of their being until the day they stubbornly die. Then INTPs like you take your experiences with your parents and your other elders and project that upon everyone as if it actually applies there, when it doesn't. It seems like half the INTPs on this forum are Catholic/Christian butthurt.

    You're right - not all religious people are like that, and all people who are like that aren't religious. Take straight edge punks for example. No religious basis there, usually, and sometimes they beat people to death for drinking a beer in their presence.

    Or what about the vegans who take serious issue with anyone who ingests or uses animal products, who not only lecture and judge, but sometimes physically attack people for wearing leather or fur?

    It's not about religion, dude. It's just some people's personalities, and they WILL find a "cause" - religious or not - to be belligerant about. And many religious or spiritual people are respectful or keep to themselves.

  2. #82
    Senior Member Shimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    SEXY
    Posts
    1,868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    Once you realize religious people aren't the only ones who do that, I think you'll have a much more balanced perspective. It has more to do with the fact that there are a vast portion of people in society who vehemently cling to their own beliefs, be it in God or something else (like the environment), and both try to impress their views upon others in various ways. Not all religious people are like that. I wouldn't even say that a majority are like that. I would say that, religious or not, it is likely in the collective character of a certain generation, the boomers, that makes them take a position of values and defend it tooth and nail. Religious boomers, atheist boomers, intellectual boomers, environmentalist boomers, same thing. Our parents are the ones who yell and grip their world views with ever fiber of their being until the day they stubbornly die. Then INTPs like you take your experiences with your parents and your other elders and project that upon everyone as if it actually applies there, when it doesn't. It seems like half the INTPs on this forum are Catholic/Christian butthurt.
    I'm not exactly a fan of Richard Dawkins either (to take another point of view). The guy's got humor and a quick wit I find funny, his one-liners are amazing, but his radicalism in wanting to destroy religion I do not support.

    I think some people here seem to think that I'm a religion basher. And I am, but it's not just religion. I bash everything that in one way or another seeks to condemn the liberties people take, rather then put them into perspective. I think, on this forum I've at least bashed Most of the world's organised religions, G. W. Bush's foreign policies, Dutch drugs policies, etc.

    I throw them all in one heap labelled "Things that restrict individual freedom for the worse".
    (removed)

  3. #83
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shimmy View Post
    At least you don't come to me with the "Because it's in the bible", or "Because the pope says so" arguments.
    Well that would be rather pointless since you're obviously not Catholic or even Christian. Even then, a rational explanation of the Church's position is needed even within an intra-Catholic dispute. Ironically Catholicism is criticised by other Christians for being overly rationalistic in explaining itself.


    As for the condom argument. The article states that 'condoms alone are not a good way to stop the spread of AIDS', and that 'recommendations would be to distribute condoms along with taking other measures'. I think this could, at worst, be interpreted as 'condoms don't add to public health' (everything between ' and ' is paraphrased). On the other hand, nowhere does it say that distributing condoms doesn't add to public health. The pope on the other hand says, condoms -> more AIDS, due to a decrease in awareness of the risks and an increase in the numbers of sexual partners. Which to me seems like a fair enough and plausible conclusion, worth further research.

    I hope you still agree with me up to here, since I think so far I'm not touching anything the Catholic church wouldn't be fully endorsing. Up until so far

    Now here's the part that you might find a little bit on the edge. The subject is worth further research, not worth agreeing with blindly. The pope bans condoms, not because they don't necessarily stop AIDS, but because he is trying to control the sexual morale of people. If there would be a reliable and cheap medicine for AIDS available tomorrow, do you think the pope would say, thank god, now we there is no more practical reason to ban condoms! I think nothing would change for him, and his "abstinence, not condoms" agenda. He'd just find another petty reason why he is right, and others are wrong.
    Perhaps it's the late hour I'm reading this, but I'm failing to see what exact point you're trying to make with all this. It seems you keep grasping for straws to prove that all roads lead to Roman hypocrisy. Earlier you even condemned the Church because it decided to tackle the issue of abuses of indulgences, and claimed it was because of hypocrisy. You condemn the Church for not supporting condom use, yet then claim that the Church does allow it strictly for medical purposes(actually that's a misinterpretation but oh well). But for whatever reason you're still not satisifed and claim it's all hypocrisy. If I read you correctly, above you now admit the Pope may have a plausible point in regards to condoms. Yet once again you provide more speculation about how this is all really because of hypocrisy and whatnot.

    Far better arguments have been made by Catholics about corruption and hypocrisy within the Church. Karl Rahner, one of the leading theologians of the last century, noted that there was so much indifference to dogma that if tomorrow the Pope repudiated the Trinity and claimed God comes in only two forms - nobody would care. That's far more damning than anything you've brought up, since the Trinity involves the very nature of God himself and is a basic dogma of the Church(which no pope has the authority to repudiate).

  4. #84
    Senior Member Shimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    SEXY
    Posts
    1,868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Well that would be rather pointless since you're obviously not Catholic or even Christian. Even then, a rational explanation of the Church's position is needed even within an intra-Catholic dispute. Ironically Catholicism is criticised by other Christians for being overly rationalistic in explaining itself.




    Perhaps it's the late hour I'm reading this, but I'm failing to see what exact point you're trying to make with all this. It seems you keep grasping for straws to prove that all roads lead to Roman hypocrisy. Earlier you even condemned the Church because it decided to tackle the issue of abuses of indulgences, and claimed it was because of hypocrisy. You condemn the Church for not supporting condom use, yet then claim that the Church does allow it strictly for medical purposes(actually that's a misinterpretation but oh well). But for whatever reason you're still not satisifed and claim it's all hypocrisy. If I read you correctly, above you now admit the Pope may have a plausible point in regards to condoms. Yet once again you provide more speculation about how this is all really because of hypocrisy and whatnot.

    Far better arguments have been made by Catholics about corruption and hypocrisy within the Church. Karl Rahner, one of the leading theologians of the last century, noted that there was so much indifference to dogma that if tomorrow the Pope repudiated the Trinity and claimed God comes in only two forms - nobody would care. That's far more damning than anything you've brought up, since the Trinity involves the very nature of God himself and is a basic dogma of the Church(which no pope has the authority to repudiate).
    Last straws? I'm not being unrealistic and stubborn to change a point of view in a discussion. I interpreted that Humanae Vitae you posted as the catholic church allows condoms if they are strictly to prevent AIDS. It says that sex (between married couples) during infertile periods is allowed, well that's obviously not intended for procreation (chapter 16). It also states that the Catholic church 'does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases' (chapter 15). But yeah, it is an interpretation, maybe I was being overly hopeful in thinking that this would also mean 'does not consider al all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to stop the spread of bodily diseases'.
    As for condom use. The pope may have a plausible theory, but if you look at Thailand, condom promotion can have a positive effect as well. Like I said, the pope's claims are worth investigating by social scientists, but so should the option of condom promotion be to the pope.

    Luckily a lot of people ARE indifferent to dogma, now let's abolish the concept of dogma altogether and replace it instead with a system where people are actually allowed and motivated to question things.

    As for criticising the church for those changes. I'm saying the church always changes only several hundred years after it is possible, and only if it means not loosing members. I mean, if what they preach is eternal and absolute truth, wouldn't that be a little bit more important then any number of members? On the other hand, if their motives are to guide people into having a good and moral life (who are they to determine what is good and moral any way), why would they bother trying to explain the world in the first place? Scientific method seems to do this more precise any way.

    As for Karl Rahner, well I'm just not trying to make a point of the nature of god in this thread.
    (removed)

  5. #85
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shimmy View Post
    Luckily a lot of people ARE indifferent to dogma, now let's abolish the concept of dogma altogether and replace it instead with a system where people are actually allowed and motivated to question things.

    As for criticising the church for those changes. I'm saying the church always changes only several hundred years after it is possible, and only if it means not loosing members. I mean, if what they preach is eternal and absolute truth, wouldn't that be a little bit more important then any number of members? On the other hand, if their motives are to guide people into having a good and moral life (who are they to determine what is good and moral any way), why would they bother trying to explain the world in the first place? Scientific method seems to do this more precise any way.
    Those statements just show a poor understanding of Christianity. I feel like I make this point over and over again when talking about it, but I think it needs to be made in every case. There have been thousands of books written about Church dogmas and doctrine (over 2,000 years of history), and the greatest Catholic intellectuals sought God through reason. This is very important to understand. The Church has a very rich intellectual heritage, a quick Google search will confirm that. No one who understands Christianity for what it teaches would ever suppress inquiry. Actually, inquiry and reason are some of the best ways to build a strong faith.

    To answer your last question "why would they bother trying to explain the world in the first place?" That is obvious. Science leaves one wanting. It is all well and good, but if not married with theology is meaningless. The two are not mutually exclusive. The Church feels a need to explain the world because although it gives the outlines for a perfectly moral life, people still want to know "why?" Unfortunately, hard logic does not really answer the "why" within us fully, because there is an ineffable quality to our minds. This quality has a hunger for truth not satiated by mere data. We are infinite minds in finite bodies...this is why the marriage of theology and science is so important.

    People who vehemently criticize religion are often doing it for emotional reasons and in most cases they have failed to do a fully inquiry.

  6. #86
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nyx View Post
    People who vehemently criticize religion are often doing it for emotional reasons and in most cases they have failed to do a fully inquiry.
    It's completely emotional.

  7. #87

    Default

    I apologize if this ground has been covered before.

    I'd like to address this particular point:
    In simple summary it said that the universe is too orderly, purposeful, even beautiful to be the result of random mechanical causes; the assumption of Divine creation makes sense, it is in fact inevitable.
    If used as an argument against the theory of evolution, I find it woefully lacking. Evolution is not random chance, but guided by natural selection. Each facet of an organism comes out in steps selected for from generation to generation. This process is a lot faster than "random chance."

    However, if used to point out that the laws of nature in general (including evolution through variation and natural/artificial selection) are too beautiful and orderly to have come about from chance, then I believe it has much more merit.

    Although, I disagree with the "inevitability" of there being an intelligent designer, I choose to believe there is one.

    -------

    Also, as far as intelligent design being taught in schools, I think it is perfectly acceptable in a philosophy class, but inappropriate for a biology class.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  8. #88
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shimmy View Post
    Last straws? I'm not being unrealistic and stubborn to change a point of view in a discussion.
    It's not wrong to change your views when new evidence arrives, but to constantly change ones views at every stroke can actually be a sign of intellectual immaturity. Considered yourself warned.


    I interpreted that Humanae Vitae you posted as the catholic church allows condoms if they are strictly to prevent AIDS. It says that sex (between married couples) during infertile periods is allowed, well that's obviously not intended for procreation (chapter 16). It also states that the Catholic church 'does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases' (chapter 15). But yeah, it is an interpretation, maybe I was being overly hopeful in thinking that this would also mean 'does not consider al all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to stop the spread of bodily diseases'.
    What they're referring to is something like the Biorhythm method I believe. Let me say again you need to educate yourself far better on Catholic teachings and history, cause your ignornance on the matter is becoming far too clear.

    As for condom use. The pope may have a plausible theory, but if you look at Thailand, condom promotion can have a positive effect as well.
    Even if so, as I just pointed out to noigm, the Church's position is primarily one of moral principles. So even if condoms do work, it's still wrong. And I gave the example that killling off all people infected with the disease and burning their corpses would still be wrong, even if studies shows it does help stop the spread of the disease. You realise that practicality is a means to end, not an end in itself?


    Like I said, the pope's claims are worth investigating by social scientists, but so should the option of condom promotion be to the pope.
    Do you even know why the Pope is opposed to condom use in the first place? Please give a real answer, not random speculations.

    I think Nyx dealt very well with the rest of your post. Seriously, your arguments here are nothing more than just silly if I maybe so blunt, especially when you keep changing targets attempting to prove your point(whatever that maybe). When in a hole, stop digging.

  9. #89
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    However, if used to point out that the laws of nature in general (including evolution through variation and natural/artificial selection) are too beautiful and orderly to have come about from chance, then I believe it has much more merit.
    That is the basic point being made here.

  10. #90
    Senior Member Shimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    SEXY
    Posts
    1,868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nyx View Post
    Those statements just show a poor understanding of Christianity. I feel like I make this point over and over again when talking about it, but I think it needs to be made in every case. There have been thousands of books written about Church dogmas and doctrine (over 2,000 years of history), and the greatest Catholic intellectuals sought God through reason. This is very important to understand. The Church has a very rich intellectual heritage, a quick Google search will confirm that. No one who understands Christianity for what it teaches would ever suppress inquiry. Actually, inquiry and reason are some of the best ways to build a strong faith.

    To answer your last question "why would they bother trying to explain the world in the first place?" That is obvious. Science leaves one wanting. It is all well and good, but if not married with theology is meaningless. The two are not mutually exclusive. The Church feels a need to explain the world because although it gives the outlines for a perfectly moral life, people still want to know "why?" Unfortunately, hard logic does not really answer the "why" within us fully, because there is an ineffable quality to our minds. This quality has a hunger for truth not satiated by mere data. We are infinite minds in finite bodies...this is why the marriage of theology and science is so important.

    People who vehemently criticize religion are often doing it for emotional reasons and in most cases they have failed to do a fully inquiry.
    People who follow a religion do so entirely based on emotions as well, it's fine to have a subjective view of the world. Then second of all, I do not attack organised religion (or individual people) for having theological, spiritual, moral and philosophical ideas in the first place. I attack those organised religions (and certain individuals) on the premiss of them thinking they hold the truth.

    A Christian philosopher contemplating the world is fine. A Christian philosopher contemplating how the world should operate according to previous believes isn't. Unfortunately, organised religions tend to venture in the second option.

    I understand that people will look for answers pure science can't give them, and that religion provides them with it. So did he. A religion should provide perspective, not answers.

    Now I will repeat myself again, the Catholic church is not 'the evil empire', they just tend to hold their values and believes as universal "answers".

    To save you the trouble of mentioning it. A scientist defending his theory at the cost of another theory despite the absence of any proof of his theory is NOT the scientist I'm defending either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    It's not wrong to change your views when new evidence arrives, but to constantly change ones views at every stroke can actually be a sign of intellectual immaturity. Considered yourself warned.
    'Personal attacks on integrity' and 'warnings', whatever way they are worded are not an argument, attack the message, not the messenger. If you're annoyed in arguing with me, just stop replying to my posts. It won't hurt either of us to stop this debate entirely, but dammit, I can be as stubborn as a mule when I'm arguing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    What they're referring to is something like the Biorhythm method I believe. Let me say again you need to educate yourself far better on Catholic teachings and history, cause your ignornance on the matter is becoming far too clear.
    You could be entirely right if you say I interpreted it wrong. I already basically admitted it. I think I had some hopes for an actual surprisingly progressive point of view from the Catholic church, probably just wishful thinking on my part.


    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Even if so, as I just pointed out to noigm, the Church's position is primarily one of moral principles. So even if condoms do work, it's still wrong. And I gave the example that killling off all people infected with the disease and burning their corpses would still be wrong, even if studies shows it does help stop the spread of the disease. You realise that practicality is a means to end, not an end in itself?

    Do you even know why the Pope is opposed to condom use in the first place? Please give a real answer, not random speculations.

    I think Nyx dealt very well with the rest of your post. Seriously, your arguments here are nothing more than just silly if I maybe so blunt, especially when you keep changing targets attempting to prove your point(whatever that maybe). When in a hole, stop digging.
    Tell me, what ARE the pope's arguments to ban condoms? What IS the popes way to stop the spread of AIDS? I think I was being rather accurate about my opinion, now give my your answers, instead of avoiding them.

    It seems you are now generally trying to attack me on the fact that I don't have all the answers as to how the world might work. You're right, I don't. I reckon however that if we (me, people with ideas, philosophers, scientists etc.) We could come a long way, especially in worldly situations like stopping the AIDS crisis.
    (removed)

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution vs. Intelligent Design/Creationism
    By Anentropic IxTx in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 161
    Last Post: 11-10-2013, 11:56 PM
  2. Dennis Quaid's take on Doc Holliday vs. Val Kilmer's
    By DoctorCroupy#9 in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-03-2013, 08:18 PM
  3. [E9] Eights, What's Your Take On This?
    By bechimo in forum Enneatypes
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 12-29-2010, 02:24 AM
  4. A new/old take on temperament theory: Has anyone heard of this?
    By Bethy in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-26-2007, 09:17 PM
  5. Ken Miller on Intelligent Design
    By darlets in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-08-2007, 05:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO